Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs Sub-Inspector Marihal Police Station, on 2 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 02 N D DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
WRIT PETI TION No.62521/2012[GM-POLICE]
BETWEEN:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Madiwale Arcade, 2 n d Floor
Club Road Belgaum
Rep. through its Regional Office
Sumgala Complex, 2 n d floor
Lamington Road, Hubli
Rep. by its Assistant Manager. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Nagangouda R.Kuppelur, Advocate for Sri
B.C.Seetharama Rao Associates, Advocates)
AND:
1. Sub-Inspector Marihal Police Station
Hirebagewadi
Taluk & Dist: Belgaum
Rep. by the Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench at Dharwad.
2. The Director of General of Police (DGP)
Nrupathunga Road
Bangalore-560 001.
:2:
3. Smt.Yamanavva
W/o. Yallappa Bajentri
Age: 60 years
Occ: Coolie & H.W.
R/o. As the Village
Taluk & District: Belgaum.
4. Balappa
S/o. Veerabhadrappa Madanalli
Age: Major
Occ: Business
R/o. 106, Patil Galli Marihal
Belagaum.
(Owner of motorcycle
No.KA-22/V-2366) ...Respondents
(By Sri Anant P.Savadi, Advocate for R3; Sri Hemant
Chandangoudar, Advocate for R4; Sri K.S.Patil,
HCGP for R1 & R2)
This writ petition is filed under articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the chargesheet dated
29.11.2005 in C.C.No.1133/2005, filed by I-
respondent as per Annexure-F & to absolve
petitioner of liability & etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' group this day, the court made the
following:
:3:
O R D E R
The Insurance Company has filed this petition under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking the following reliefs:-
i) Quash the chargesheet dated 29.11.2005 in C.C.No.1133/2005 filed by 1st respondent as per Annexure-F and to absolve the petitioner of the liability.
ii) To issue a direction to the 2 n d respondent to take appropriate steps to avoid the accidents cases being manipulated to create liability against the insurance companies."
2. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
3. It is the contention of petitioner that at the first instance, history of injuries was given as due to assault, however during investigation, version was changed to make it a case of accidental death. The insured vehicle was fixed to saddle liability :4: on Insurance Company. The Investigating Officer has submitted final report.
4. The short point for determination in this petition is:-
"Whether the investigation records and criminal court judgments are decisive and binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') for deciding claim petitions filed under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act?"
5. The learned counsel for petitioner referring to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.7493/2007 (BAJAJ ALL IANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LT D Vs. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA) dated 25.09.2007 and also Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2012 (2) MACR 664 (Kar)(DB) (SMT . S.SHARADA AND OT HERS vs. K.V ISHWANAT AND OT HERS) would submit that the insurance company has to challenge the investigation records :5: either by filing petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Unless the insurance company challenges the investigation records or the final report under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., or under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the insurance company would be bound by the investigation records in proceedings initiated for adjudication of claim petitions filed under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. The learned HCGP and also learned counsel for other respondents would submit that the judgment of criminal court determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of motor vehicle involved in accident is not decisive and binding on the Tribunal dealing with claim petition under the relevant provisions of the Act. It could be used only to the extent provided under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. :6:
7. In a decision reported in 1970 P H 137 (MUN ICIPAL COMMIT T EE, JULLUNDUR Vs. SHR I ROMESH SAGGI AND OT HERS), a Division Bench of Panjab and Haryana High Court has considered the referred question reading as hereunder:-
"Whether the judgment of a criminal Court in a prosecution arising out of a motor accident, determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned, is conclusive and binding upon the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dealing with a claim petition under Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, and if not, for what purposes and to what extent can such a judgment be availed of by the parties concerned."
The Division Bench has answered the referred question as hereunder:
"The Judgment of a Criminal Court in a prosecution arising out of a motor accident, determining the :7: guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned, is neither conclusive nor binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, dealing with a claim petition under Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, and its findings as to the guilt or otherwise of the driver are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the trial on merits of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Such judgment can however, be relevant only for the purpose and to the extent specified in Section 43 of the Evidence Act"
8. In a decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.1500/2010 dated 12.08.2010 in the case of KISHAN SINGH (D) T HROUGH L.R.s Vs. GURPAL SINGH & OT HERS, Supreme Court has held:
"19. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of :8: fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.":9:
9. In a decision reported in 1997 ACJ 993 (PANKAJBHA I CHANDULAL PAT IL vs. BHARAT T RANSPORT CO. AND ANOT HER), a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has held:
"10. In our view, the judgment of the criminal court is not relevant to prove in a civil court or before the Tribunal, the guilt or innocence of the person driving the vehicle. Evidence before the two courts on the same issue would not be the same as all the witnesses for one or another reason are not examined in both the forums or do not state consistently. At times, somewhere material evidence is suppressed or witnesses are won over, or driver of the vehicle is made to confess the guilt despite truth being otherwise; so that claimant may not fail before the Tribunal. The law, therefore, does not provide to place sole reliance on the judgment of criminal court making the claim free from : 10 : claimant's onus to prove the issue of negligence. The claimant has to lead evidence to prove his case.
Consequently, negligence or innocence will have to be established independent of the criminal court's finding or
judgment. The Tribunal determining the issues arising in petition for compensation has, therefore, to come to its independent finding appreciating the evidence produced before it. The judgment of the criminal court can only show that the concerned driver was convicted or acquitted in the criminal case. At the most, in our view the judgment of the criminal court may provide corroboration to the evidence adduced by the claimant, but can never be the sole decisive factor qua negligent driving, for the negligence is required to be established by leading necessary evidence. If the statement confessing the guilt is : 11 : made by the driver of the offending vehicle before the criminal court, it will be, at the most, if made voluntarily, corroborative piece of evidence provided of course it relates to the issue(s) in question before the civil court or Tribunal, but can never be the sole decisive factor as the claimant in compensation petition has to establish his case independent of confessional statement made by the driver. Having regard to the materials on record, if there is a reason to question or doubt the voluntary character of the confession for any reason, or owing to fraud, undue influence, allurement, promise, plea, bargain, misrepresentation; or is made or got made pursuant to any device or design or collusion so as to succeed in the claim petition, or there is nothing on record going to show that the statement made relates to : 12 : the issue in question, or the same wrong under investigation, or the fact made a base for a claim before the civil court or Tribunal, the same has to be kept out of consideration unless the driver appears and explains ruling out the possibility of involuntary character or device or design, or makes it clear that it relates to the same wrong, fact or issue."
10. In a decision reported in 1993 ACJ 447 (in the case of RAJ RAM GARG Vs. CHHANGA S INGH AND OT HERS), a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held:
"5. In law, there is no bar for both the proceedings going on simultaneously. While the criminal prosecution has been launched and is being conducted by the State, the claim petition is instituted by the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased. The judgment in the Criminal Court would not be relevant in the claim petition under the Motor Veh icles Act and certainly not for establishing the fact in : 13 : issue, by virtue of Sections 40 and 43 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, the judgment in the claim petition would be equally not relevant in the criminal case/sessions case, and certainly not for establishing the guilt of the accused therein."
11. In view of what has been held in the afore- cited judgments, the apprehension of petitioner that investigation records in the aforestated case, judgment of the criminal case thereof and the result of criminal case would be decisive on the issues for consideration before the Tribunal is not well- founded. The Tribunal has to decide the issues framed by it on the basis of evidence adduced before it. The judgment of criminal court and investigation records can be used to corroborate primary evidence adduced before the Tribunal.
12. Above all, this court cannot mechanically issue directions for re-investigation or further investigation to CBI or COD, more particularly, when the investigation records of criminal case and : 14 : result of criminal case thereof, have no direct bearing on the issues for determination by the Tribunal.
13. As already stated, these issues will have to be decided by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced before it. The investigation records or the judgment of criminal court will not preclude the contesting parties from substantiating their defence by adducing necessary and relevant evidence before the Tribunal. The investigation records and judgment of criminal case can be used as corroborative evidence. The petition is dismissed with these observations.
SD/-
JUDGE SNN